Pharmacy support staff and the future

[Steve G]

But you still need a pharmacist with an ACT because the scripts have to be clinically checked by the pharmacist.

I don't see ACTs as a threat, I see them as giving me some freedom and the oppurtunity to do things like MURs and warfarin clinics. In fact, the less checking I do (accuracy checking, not clinical checks), the better. I didn't train for five years to check that Mrs Muggings has got the bendroflumethazide 2.5mg her script asked for. And as for checking nomads and manrex, that's definitely the less the better.

[mm45]

Originally Posted by Steve G

But you still need a pharmacist with an ACT because the scripts have to be clinically checked by the pharmacist.

I don't see ACTs as a threat, I see them as giving me some freedom and the oppurtunity to do things like MURs and warfarin clinics. In fact, the less checking I do (accuracy checking, not clinical checks), the better. I didn't train for five years to check that Mrs Muggings has got the bendroflumethazide 2.5mg her script asked for. And as for checking nomads and manrex, that's definitely the less the better.

Yeah I completely agree, but I think as a proffesion we need to be more ready to accept greater roles like murs, clinics etc. Otherwise why pay a pharmacist more when they could just employee an ACT for a much lower wage...

[admin]

Originally Posted by mm45

Yeah I completely agree, but I think as a proffesion we need to be more ready to accept greater roles like murs, clinics etc. Otherwise why pay a pharmacist more when they could just employee an ACT for a much lower wage...

We've had a debate on this before. My opinion was that there simply won't be enough jobs for pharmacists, and a lot of us will be out of work.

Of course they won't pay a pharmacist if then can get an ACT to run a pharmacy. They won't pay us to prescribe either, because nurses earn a lot less then we do and do that as well now.

The future ain't orange.........

[kemzero]

ACTs will be great for community pharmacy,it will free up the p'cist to do other things e.g advanced and enhanced services,OTC consultations etc
The responsible p'cist would be in charge of one pharmacy only ( 2 in exceptional circumstances) and all prescriptions would still need to be clinically assessed by a p'cist so I can't see any probs , I actually wrote to my MP about my concerns and he forwarded that to Andy Burnham who replied ,I could send you copies if you want...don't feel threatened by ACTs we need to embrace them ...anyway with the new proposals its the responsible p'cist who is in charge of SOPs and delegation if you are not happy you don't have to do what your emplyers want and you can report to the society (check insight magazine on the PDA website for further info).Besides not all ACTs will be willing to take on the extra responsibility even though the overall responsibility is the phamacists'

[kemzero]

Originally Posted by mm45

Yeah I completely agree, but I think as a proffesion we need to be more ready to accept greater roles like murs, clinics etc. Otherwise why pay a pharmacist more when they could just employee an ACT for a much lower wage...

A lower wage for a completely different service, the only level for comparison is the checking bit ..not the clinical assessment , specialist ACTs in hospitals /PCT do have some clinical experience but I am yet to see one in community pharmacy ..they just dispense,some don't even know what the medicine they are dispensing is used for..

[admin]

I have worked with one and she's really good. The shop she's in is really busy, and to be able to let her check off things like homes is a great help.

I'm not against them whatsoever, but the multiples would run their stores with no pharmacists in sight if they could get away with it.

I just don't think that there will be enough alternative things for us all to do, if our main job was taken away.

[kemzero]

I just don't think that there will be enough alternative things for us all to do, if our main job was taken away.[/quote]

Admin

There's loads we can do,I don't believe p'cists are trained just to check....checking could be delegated so long as the checker is not the dispenser.ACTs would be invaluable to a pharmacy team,although I don't believe they should be involved in clinically assessing a script that responsibility cannot be delegated because patient safety must never be compromised

[admin]

There's loads we can do,I don't believe p'cists are trained just to check....checking could be delegated so long as the checker is not the dispenser.ACTs would be invaluable to a pharmacy team,although I don't believe they should be involved in clinically assessing a script that responsibility cannot be delegated because patient safety must never be compromised.

I totally agree that they can't do clinical checks etc and I'd love to leave the daily grind of just checking scripts. I know a lot of our skills are wasted on this job, but unless these other things are funded properly I still feel concerned that there won't be enough work to go round us all.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by kemzero

I don't believe they should be involved in clinically assessing a script that responsibility cannot be delegated because patient safety must never be compromised

But repeat scripts (80% of scripts) have already been clinically assessed.

Jeff

[admin]

Originally Posted by Jeff

But repeat scripts (80% of scripts) have already been clinically assessed.

Jeff

I know that Jeff, but I still go places where people have had repeated diclofenac 75mg 1 tds all the time. Who is clinically checking these scripts? The Dr isn't, and the pharmacist doesn't appear to be doing it either.

Wether it's a repeat or not, I still try to look at each script with a clinical view. I say try, because if you are doing over I'd say 400-500 items a day it's very hard to do. When you get up over the 600 mark I personally find it just about impossible.